Slashdot Mirror
New York City Announces Plans To Introduce Legislation To Cut Building Emission, Its Top Source Of Climate Pollution (huffingtonpost.com)
A top New York City lawmaker announced a bill Monday to mandate dramatic energy use cuts in big buildings, by far the biggest source of carbon dioxide, in a historic move that could set a new standard for cities around the world. From a report: The legislation plans to require the city's largest buildings to reduce energy use by 20 percent by 2030, as well as to set a framework for increasing the cuts by 40 percent to 60 percent by 2050. Combined with projected increases for renewable energy capacity on the power grid, the city could reduce its climate-warming emissions by 80 percent. Electricity and heating in buildings make up nearly 70 percent of the city's climate pollution, with luxury towers producing the lion's share. "The low-hanging fruit is gone," City Councilman Costa Constantinides, a Queens legislator who leads the council's Committee on Environmental Protection, said Monday morning on the steps of City Hall. "If we are going to make a real impact on climate change, it's going to be on buildings." The legislation, which is not yet complete, would make the nation's largest and most economically influential metropolis among the first major cities in the world to mandate strict retrofits on existing buildings to reduce planet-warming emissions.
Especially the orange ones.
The law seems to primarily target city-owned buildings -- hope there's money to retrofit them and it doesn't result in the closing of services. Frankly, I see a better path for NY State: build more nuclear power stations to replace Indian Point when it closes. If you can't reduce energy use too much, you can at least make the source(s) clean.
I really hope the bill is not to make all buildings cut energy use by 20% - that would mean buildings that tried to be forward thinking and have low energy use to begin with, would have to spend quite a lot more to meet a 20% target than some buildings that didn't care about energy use and could meet a 20% target with simpler and cheaper measures...
So hopefully it's more complex than the article makes it sounds. But knowing politicians, probably not.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Seriously, in any large city, there are 2 main sources of pollution and CO2.
1) electricity since most cities have 1 or more coal plants.
2) vehicles, esp since nearly all are ICE.
NY and NYC have been going at things in a catywhumpus sort of way. At this time, NY would be smart to implement a modified form of CA's new regs; require that all new buildings of 6 stories and under to have enough unsubsidized on-site AE to equal/exceed the energy used by HVAC. This will encourage things like more insulation,geo-thermal HVAC, and even high lumens/watt bulbs. The reason is that solar is more expensive than those alternatives.
Likewise, all rentals AND home sales, should be required to have all high lumens/watt bulbs upon tenant turnover. THis will drop the energy used by about 5-10%.
In addition, for any building below 6 stories that is doing rentals/leasing, they should be required to pay for the HVAC. In doing that, it will encourage the landlord to either insulate it and move to CHEAP HVAC, OR sell it to somebody that will do it.
Finally, it is time for cities to have some courage and stop allowing vehicles in.
FOr starters, stop all passenger diesels.
Year after that, stop the commercial diesel.
Then ALL ICE passenger vehicles.
Followed by all ICE.
4 years is plenty long.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.